CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST

[Abraham]

TAM noted: Not only that, but I just saw an Garland PD presser about an hour ago, and the officer said that they were going to rethink allowing these kinds of events in the future.

Rethink = Cave In to the their non-American demands for what they might do?

Oh yeah, cave in while the radicals chortle at our weak kneed response to their evil.

Appeasement doesn't work...

Their latest attempt at squelching free speech got two of them smoked!

As to the Garland PD presser (I'm unfamiliar with the word "presser, I guess it's the same as a PR type/spokesman) stating they may rethink allowing these kinds of events. (I'd love to read a definition of "these kind of events"

As I don't know Garland city ordinances, I guess they have that power, but they may also simply assume it if no one complains.

Anyone know if they can legally disallow "these kinds of events"?

[fickman]

WFAA keeps labeling it an "anti-Islam" event, not a free speech event.

I saw a CNN interview where the anchor was clearly insinuating that the free speechers "asked for it and had it coming".

Sad. Very sad.

I think I was in 7th grade when I saw the stupidity of guys goaded into a fight because the other guy "was talking about my mom." The fight always ended up in a suspension and sometimes in a ticket from the campus officer. I asked a few of them, "Does he even know your mom?" "No." "Then why do you care what he says?"

It seems pretty ignorant and immature to give somebody else so much power that their words unilaterally compel your actions. Counterintuitively, it puts you at their mercy, not them at yours.

The proper response is to have ten of these events next week, 100 the week after that, and 1,000 the week after that.

[TVGuy]

I'm growing quite tired of the two corpses not being referred to as "terrorists". Whether or not either one spent any time in ISIS training camps, this is still what they were.

[VMI77]

WFAA keeps labeling it an "anti-Islam" event, not a free speech event.

I saw a CNN interview where the anchor was clearly insinuating that the free speechers "asked for it and had it coming".

Sad. Very sad.

I think I was in 7th grade when I saw the stupidity of guys goaded into a fight because the other guy "was talking about my mom." The fight always ended up in a suspension and sometimes in a ticket from the campus officer. I asked a few of them, "Does he even know your mom?" "No." "Then why do you care what he says?"

It seems pretty ignorant and immature to give somebody else so much power that their words unilaterally compel your actions. Counterintuitively, it puts you at their mercy, not them at yours.

The proper response is to have ten of these events next week, 100 the week after that, and 1,000 the week after that.

That's what you get for watching CNN. Who does that?

[gljjt]

In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.

I understand that they had previously allowed the center to be used for a "muslim" assembly of some kind. In spite of that, I believe it is foolish to allow the use of a public facility for an event that they KNOW is likely to elicit a negative response, and possibly a violent one, which it did. I also don't think it should ever have been approved for ANY "religious" meeting in the first place. There are plenty of private facilities that any type of religious group can use to hold an assembly. If anyone wants to hold a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever assembly let them go to a Mosque, Temple, or Church and do so to their hearts content, but the government owned facilities should not be used...maintain the separation between church and state. The city of Garland was obviously anticipating problems given the uniformed and SWAT officers posted on the scene...thankfully. It's a case of "if you allow one group access, then you have no grounds to deny any other group the same access". The city council needs to look at setting a policy to avoid the issue.

I couldn't disagree more with what you've stated above. I would argue that cutting out all religious groups as not being able to use the facilities while allowing non-religious groups is by far a bigger infringement of the exact church/state protection you mention.

I would also argue that stopping an event from being held just because it might anger some people is a direct assault of our very Constitution and a very slippery slope of state censorship. Once that starts, you're not far from NK, China, Etc.

I agree with TVGuy. He nailed it. To deny a group use of a public facility based on religious views is intolerant. They paid the same money as any other group and are entitled to the same use. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Read the first amendment. Renting to religious groups is not an endorsement. But denying use because of religion is discriminatory, bigoted and hostile.

[jason812]

Fact: muslims extremists do not need to be provoked. They want to kill us no matter what.

After the street art last night, I think we might need to provoke them a little.

[cb1000rider]

Anyone know if they can legally disallow "these kinds of events"?

I image that they can disallow events that are provocative and might result in a substantial security requirement or involve permitting. Just because I think they should be allowed to speak and demonstrate their views freely, doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea. And as near as I can tell, these were not trained ISIS guys, they're just more idiots looking for headlines... Which they got.

Some people say this is just like Charlie Hebdo. I don't think that's true. Hebdo is provocative, but they're equally provocative and insulting to many groups and many points of view. They don't just insult Muslims. They've mocked Christianity and other religions. This was an inflammatory event. Free speech, sure. Flag burning is the same thing - free speech, but pretty inflammatory. This event was inflammatory enough to warrant a significant amount of security. The managed to push the button of two substantially unskilled idiots that obviously wanted some infamy.

[MechAg94]

I really doubt ISIS training would have helped. They could probably have gotten better firearms training lots of places in the US.

I would fear explosives more than guns, but that is harder to do without attracting attention.

[philip964]

Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.

I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.

I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.

[Rex B]

Someone tweeted that his favorite art from that event was the 2 chalk outlines out front.

[G.A. Heath]

Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.

I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.

I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.

No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...

[Taypo]

Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.

I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.

I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.

No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...

Its my understanding that he wasn't a revolver guy, he was a .45 guy. Granted, it was a Glock but nobody's perfect

[n5wd]

Apparently, the traffic officer is a 28-year veteran of Garland PD, a 60-year old, and wishes to remain anonymous for right now, according to Fox4's Clarice Tinsley on their 9pm broadcast just a while ago.

Old guys won't fight ya... They'll just shoot ya!

[G.A. Heath]

Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.

I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.

I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.

No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...

Its my understanding that he wasn't a revolver guy, he was a .45 guy. Granted, it was a Glock but nobody's perfect

My point is that Michael Berry was saying the weapon used was a "service revolver"

[Taypo]

Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.

I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.

I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.

No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...

Its my understanding that he wasn't a revolver guy, he was a .45 guy. Granted, it was a Glock but nobody's perfect

My point is that Michael Berry was saying the weapon used was a "service revolver"

My point is that several other sources are indicating otherwise